Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the claim of Haralambos Katehis
on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action against the State of New
York. The motion is unopposed by Mr. Katehis.[1]

Essentially, claimant alleges that when he went to answer a summons at Queens
Borough Hall, he had to wait outside in a long line, and Court Officers were
"belligerent," refusing his request to come inside to wait, even though it was
raining heavily and they were told he had "many chronic diseases." Claimant
further alleges that when he began to feel dizzy and he collapsed, he still was
not allowed to come inside as he waited for an ambulance. An "Aided Report"
prepared as to the incident states as follows:

At t/p/o, aided was observed sitting at the entrance of the summons part,
blocking pedestrian traffic, when approached by UCO Delcielo . . . aided
requested an ambulance for an undisclosed illness. Aided refused to cooperate
with UCO Delcielo and refused to provide any personal information. Aided's wife
then stated she would call an ambulance herself.

See exhibit C to defendant's moving papers.

* * *

The damages alleged by claimant are "medical expenses" and "extreme emotional
distress." There is no allegation that claimant's illness was caused by the
Court Officers, and thus any medical expenses he incurred cannot be attributed
to the State.

For the foregoing reasons, having reviewed the
submissions[4], IT IS ORDERED that motion no.
M-70593 be granted and claim no. 111064 be dismissed.

March 7, 2006New York,
New York

HON. ALAN C. MARINJudge of the Court of Claims

[1]The motion was originally returnable on
September 21, 2005. At a December 8, 2005 conference, claimant, who had failed
to submit any opposition papers as of that time, was granted an adjournment to a
return date of January 18, 2006, but to date, has failed to submit any such
opposition.

[2]This and other decisions of the Court of
Claims may be found on the Court's website:
www.nyscourtofclaims.state.ny.us.

[3]See, e.g., Sanchez v State of New
York, Ct Cl, January 10, 2005 (unreported, claim no. 109040, motion no.
M-68543, cross-motion no. CM-68673, Waldon, J. ) ("Courthouse security is an
essential component of the justice system in that it helps to provide a safe
atmosphere where, inter alia, the courts of this state can properly
function.")

[4]The Court reviewed defendant's notice of
motion with affirmation in support and exhibits A through C. As set forth
above, claimant did not oppose the motion.